Help
On the 7th hand, we are blessed with comparatively few choices when looking, in 4th seat, at a decision whether to pass the hand out or to open red v white at mps with A2 5 10752 AKJ653
Our most accomplished panelist saw no real issues here:
Fred: '1♣. What else could I possibly do? Passout the hand when we could be laydown for 6♣ (or even 7♣) opposite a magic 4=4=0=5? Misdescribe my hand by opening 3♣ out of fear that the hand belongs to my opps. In my view, doing anything other than opening 1[C] amounts to either masterminding or blindly following the 'rule of 15' (which, btw, is not my idea of a good 'rule')
1♣ certainly got more votes than any other call, including a unanimous expert panel vote, but most of the other comments suggested that the issue wasn't seen as quite so clear-cut.
Frances: '1♣. We always get a bad board for passing out a hand at mps in 4th seat. Always. (Ed: personally, I think my average is about 60%... but we rarely pass it out, and I'd never pass this one, even tho it could be a hand on which the pass outscores 60%). We'd open.... 3♣ with a 7th ♣ or possibly even the 10.... you could sell us a strong notrump if we weren't red'
Justin: '1♣. Too much equity in this hand to pass it out.' He noted that RHO's silence, white v red in 3d seat, suggested that he had little and no good suit, thus increasing the odds of finding a good dummy and decreasing the risk of successful competition. 'I could open 3♣ in an attempt to shut the opps out but I think that is a little presumptuous...and I don't have to get to 3♣ opposite a stiff'
That last point strikes me as valid. If we accept Justin's point about the dog who didn't bark in the night (RHO's pass), then there is a good chance that partner has major suit length, and would we be surprised to find him with 4=5=3=1 10 count, as an example?
Ritong: '1♣. 3♣ also an option'
Phil (Clayton): '1♣: no need to get excited and do something rash like pass or 3♣'
Ben wrote a long(ish) passage about Pearson Points (which I think is the same as the Rule of 15 Fred denigrated) and concluded that it is at most a guide, not a rigid go/no go rule. He concluded that 1♣ was the best call, noting that 'the other option is to try a blocking 3♣, but if you are worried about the opps, you should probably pass'
While more opted for 1♣ than any other action, there were a substantial number of bidders who were worried about the opps.
A light (on hcp) minor suit opening in 3rd or 4th seat is usually an invitation to the opps to get in with their major(s). Unless partner has at least 3=4 in the majors, the opps will have a 9 card fit. Furthermore, they will have 17-20 hcp or so, and thus the LOTT suggests that they can and will compete to the 3-level.
Of course, there is nothing about the auction that suggests that partner doesn't have the majors, and nothing to guarantee that he has a ♣ fit.
Those willing to go with what they see as the odds that the opps have a viable 3-level major suit contract have to pass or preempt via 3♣.
The 3♣ bidders gave us some comments:
Beto: '3♣... If they make anything, they have to find it at the 3-level' He recognized that he may miss game (Fred noted that slam may be available, but his comment was in the context of dismissing pass: if partner has 4=4=0=5, he isn't missing game over 3♣) but he concluded that at mps it was more important to win the partscores on hands such as these.
Ng: '3♣.. This is an 'action bid'. The goal is to prevent opp's major partial on the right level'
MikeRJ: '3♣. Minors likely to lose out to majors, but I can't bring myself to pass'
Codo (who did not otherwise comment on his bids): '3♣. Isn't this the book bid?'
I don't think it is, quite. Admittedly, 4th seat 'preemptive' openings are rare birds and we see very little, if any, discussion about what the standard treatment should be.. one of the purposes of this problem was to see whether this hand made the cut. Fred says that this is not the hand: 3♣ is a misdecription. Frances notes that it would be much more attractive with a 7th ♣ or possibly on AKJ10xx.
I agree with both of them. In my view, a 4th seat 3-level preempt is a constructive bid as well as a space-consuming preempt. When we open 3♣ in other seats, we tend to expect partner to pass.... he needs a GOOD hand to bid constructively and a good fit, with a modicum of shape, to bid preemptively.
But when we open in 4th chair, we are not, usually, so worried about preemption and we can and should expect partner to bid 3N with a fit (especially with, say, Qx or xxx) and scattered values, allowing us to reach a low-hcp but lots-of-tricks 3N.
I have to confess that when I was first given this hand as a problem, I voted for 3♣, but it was given as white v white. I cannot be objective here, because of that, but I do think that the vulnerability matters: we really, really do not want to play 3♣ if partner has a stiff ♣ and maybe not even when he has xx.
There was one solo shot at 5♣, bid without comment... no-one else mentioned it, and I am not going to discuss the call.
4 others voted for pass: a call that was considered, but rejected, by most of the bidders who provided comments.
Keylime: 'Pass. Very tempting to open 1♣...this hand feels foul'
Double: 'Pass. I hated this problem (Ed: music to a problem-setter's ears.. surpassed only by Ben's ARRGGGHHHH!).. the format is mps where this is a question of am I more likely to get a plus or a minus if I open...'
Dwingo:'Pass. If I bid 1♣, opps will get into the auction (Ed: that doesn't have to be bad)... it is a tossup between Pass or a tactical 3♣ bid...I may even think of 1N, intending to pass Stayman.'
What I enjoyed most about reading the comments is that, other than Fred, most seem to think that there is a real choice here.
The unanimity of the expert panel (I disqualify myself on this hand) means that the most popular bid is also the highest-scoring:
1♣ 100
3♣ 70
Pass 50
5♣ 10
The votes (including the panel)
1♣ 10
3♣ 8
P 4
5♣ 1
The panel: all 4 1♣
This is interesting, to me, in that if we eliminate the panel votes, we find more 3♣ votes than 1♣. I think that may represent the higher level of confidence that experts have that they and their partner can prevail at the table. But, I may be full of it
